CVE-2025-29785
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:HCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2025-29785 is a high-severity Uncaught Exception (CWE-248) vulnerability. Its CVSS base score is 7.5 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Endpoint Denial of Service (T1499); ranked at the 37th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-8 (Security and Privacy Engineering Principles) and SC-24 (Fail in Known State) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-16643
Vulnerability Data
quic-go is an implementation of the QUIC protocol in Go. The loss recovery logic for path probe packets that was added in the v0.50.0 release can be used to trigger a nil-pointer dereference by a malicious QUIC client. In order…
more
to do so, the attacker first sends valid QUIC packets from different remote addresses (thereby triggering the newly added path validation logic: the server sends path probe packets), and then sending ACKs for packets received from the server specifically crafted to trigger the nil-pointer dereference. v0.50.1 contains a patch that fixes the vulnerability. This release contains a test that generates random sequences of sent packets (both regular and path probe packets), that was used to verify that the patch actually covers all corner cases. No known workarounds are available.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Security engineering principles include robust exception management to keep the system in a defined state.
Fail-in-known-state reduces the impact when an uncaught exception occurs by preserving a safe condition.
Error handling requirements force structured catching and response to exceptions instead of allowing them to propagate uncaught.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Secure SDLC practices explicitly require structured exception handling to prevent uncaught exceptions from reaching production.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Security testing can detect uncaught exceptions before production deployment.
Secure development lifecycle includes exception-handling standards that reduce uncaught exceptions.
Application security requirements typically mandate robust error and exception handling.
Secure architecture principles call for centralized, comprehensive exception management.
Secure coding standards directly require catching and handling exceptions to prevent crashes or leaks.